Quote from: SettembriniNo. It´s the other way round.

You fire your bow, they run to your place.
You win Ini and hit them.

What if they have bows too? The proverbial kobold patrol across the bridge?  First-level PCs are fragile enough as is.

As for fleeing... again, unless the RC/Red Box changed stuff a lot, if the PCs are wearing metal armor virtually 75% of the monsters will be faster than they. At least if you play encumbrance BTB.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityMoldvay isn't, and the combat example is unclear IMO.

Shit, I need to clear this up. I would hate if it's only one action/round. You run up to the goblin, whereupon he hits you. Awesome.

that's what charges are for!  

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for fleeing... again, unless the RC/Red Box changed stuff a lot, if the PCs are wearing metal armor virtually 75% of the monsters will be faster than they. At least if you play encumbrance BTB.

That's one of the consequences of wearing heavy armor.  Also, not every monster desires to pursue.  At least a few will be perfectly happy to simply eject intruders from their home.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityMoldvay isn't, and the combat example is unclear IMO.

Shit, I need to clear this up. I would hate if it's only one action/round. You run up to the goblin, whereupon he hits you. Awesome.

Moldvay is pretty clear in the combat sequence on B24.  The only restriction given on movement is that figures engaged in melee can only move defensively and spell casters can't move and cast spells in the same round.

RC is contradictory wrt movement and combat.  There are two different rules in the combat chapter.

I find that combat example clear as mud, but I'll go read it a third time. Meanwhile, confusion reigns at Dragonsfoot as Frank Mentzer joins the fray and suggests daring rules variants.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=464098#464098

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI find that combat example clear as mud, but I'll go read it a third time. Meanwhile, confusion reigns at Dragonsfoot as Frank Mentzer joins the fray and suggests daring rules variants.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=464098#464098

Cool.

I wonder if some bright spark who doesn't realise whom they're responding to will wade in and flame Mentzer for daring to suggest such a thing. That'd be priceless.

Hilarous!
Still, the five-foot step doesn´t make sense if you can move anyways.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI find that combat example clear as mud, but I'll go read it a third time. Meanwhile, confusion reigns at Dragonsfoot as Frank Mentzer joins the fray and suggests daring rules variants.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=464098#464098

The page I cited was the rule, not the example.  The example seems to gloss over quite a bit of what's going on, and the DM seems to be making some spot rulings, which is cool, but it doesn't explain the rules very well.  The rules themselves are pretty clear and consistent, so I'd use them as a basis for interpretation...and Moldvay doesn't have the 5' step rule, so it sidesteps that question, as well.

I don't have any of the Mentzer stuff anymore, though, and it seems you might be using that version?  I don't remember how combat was presented in those books.  The Cyclopedia's good as a quick reference, but seems to have lots of errata and omissions.  It's funny how every edition of this game has so many little differences that are quite surprising in their implications.

Moldvay doesn't have 5 foot steps.  You can do a fighting withdrawal at 1/2 your movement.  Any more than that and you're retreating and the enemy gets a bonus to hit you -- and you don't get an attack against them!

Quote from: KenHRThe page I cited was the rule, not the example.  

Oh right, the combat sequence. Sorry. I think that can be taken either way, though--one action or two. It's simply mum on the issue. It tells you in which order to do things but not how many of them.

Put differently, I *know* it's move AND act, but if some player/GM disagrees I couldn't point to a passage to prove it.

You´d be amazed at how much more survivable and tactical-movement enhancing move OR attack is in actual play.
EDIT @fleeing: you attack, make a five foot step. Win initiative and run away. Goblins have to take a run action, until you screw up your movement AND initiative. You can keep running till you are out of the dungeon, provided the path is known and clear. Makes for dramatic chases!

Alas, it seems to be a non-canonical exegesis, so I´m a heretic already.

Quote from: SettembriniYou´d be amazed at how much more survivable and tactical-movement enhancing move OR attack is in actual play.
EDIT @fleeing: you attack, make a five foot step. Win initiative and run away. Goblins have to take a run action, until you screw up your movement AND initiative. You can keep running till you are out of the dungeon, provided the path is known and clear. Makes for dramatic chases!

I see pretty much the same effect in the Hero System using half-moves and full moves.  So you can get the same thing with half-move and attack or full move, too, in my experience.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh right, the combat sequence. Sorry. I think that can be taken either way, though--one action or two. It's simply mum on the issue. It tells you in which order to do things but not how many of them.

Put differently, I *know* it's move AND act, but if some player/GM disagrees I couldn't point to a passage to prove it.

I see where you're coming from.  I wargame a lot, and the accepted wisdom in rule interpretation in that branch of the gaming hobby is "if the rules don't explicitly prevent you from doing action X, you can do it."  That's the approach I take when interpreting rules in RPGs, as well.  It reduces headaches (and rules verbiage) dramatically.

So the sequence says players can move their full rate in combat.  It says they can then attack.  The only prohibition mentioned on movement and combat has to do with those already in melee (defensive move or retreat only) and those engaged in spellcasting (no movement).  If there was a similar prohibition on making a full move followed by an attack, it would have been similarly mentioned.  Since it's not prohibited, it is allowed.

From Mike's blog. Hi Mike! :incrediblehulk:

I'm creating the maps for H1, plotting out a couple dungeon levels, encounter maps, and a few other things. It's been fun. While H1 is far from a mega-dungeon, I've tried to incorporate at least some sense that the PCs can wander around the dungeon, exploring different sub-sectors and having a really different experience based on what they do.

The really nice thing is that there isn't much of a sense of an XP grind in 4e. You can pretty much tackle the encounters in almost any order, though if you hit tougher ones first you'd better consider heading back to the surface to rest rather than press on. I intentionally set one really tough fight near the entrance, giving the PCs a chance to find themselves in far more trouble than they wanted.

The question for you now is, if you ever play this adventure, which of the passages from the first room leads to the deadly encounter?

I instantly thought, hmm, should i go to page 156 or 43? Hee, hee! I think i have to get City of Thieves out!